"China now has enough wind and solar to power every home"
That's not right on two levels - both the math, but also conceptually.
Kind of a good Brandolini's Law example - explaining why it's wrong will take way more effort than saying it.
But here goes...
That's not right on two levels - both the math, but also conceptually.
Kind of a good Brandolini's Law example - explaining why it's wrong will take way more effort than saying it.
But here goes...
First, the claim is just wrong:
According to China's CEC, last year, residential power consumption was 1336.6 TWh or 15.48% of the whole economy.
And per the NEA, 2022 wind + solar generation was 1190 TWh, or 13.8% of all generation.
So no, it couldn't meet residential demand.
According to China's CEC, last year, residential power consumption was 1336.6 TWh or 15.48% of the whole economy.
And per the NEA, 2022 wind + solar generation was 1190 TWh, or 13.8% of all generation.
So no, it couldn't meet residential demand.
I'm not sure how the original author scuffed this, since the data are all published now.
I noted wind + solar generation is 13.8%, while residential power consumption coincidentally saw 13.8% growth YoY, so maybe the journalist got those mixed up.
I'll link sources at the end.
I noted wind + solar generation is 13.8%, while residential power consumption coincidentally saw 13.8% growth YoY, so maybe the journalist got those mixed up.
I'll link sources at the end.
But more importantly, even if it WERE mathematically correct, this would be a misuse of the data.
Annual solar + wind generation is fine for showing trends and directionality, but power is not consumed on an annual basis. It's consumed on a daily, hourly, minute basis.
Annual solar + wind generation is fine for showing trends and directionality, but power is not consumed on an annual basis. It's consumed on a daily, hourly, minute basis.
Was there enough solar and wind every day, hour, minute, to βpower every homeβ every day, hour, minute?
Of course not. We know wind + solar are variable, while load curves are much more constant.
Plus, China residential power peak load is at 7pm. When there's no solar...
Of course not. We know wind + solar are variable, while load curves are much more constant.
Plus, China residential power peak load is at 7pm. When there's no solar...
In reality, the power consumed by the residential sector every day, hour, minute over the year was a big messy mix of whatever the local grid company bought from generators to fill their power supply pool, differing widely by province.
Could be anything in there really.
Could be anything in there really.
"Okay, this is nitpicky," perhaps you're saying.
"There are clearly two numbers...one is wind + solar generation, and one is residential power consumption, and they are really close. Right? How can we describe this milestone?"
"There are clearly two numbers...one is wind + solar generation, and one is residential power consumption, and they are really close. Right? How can we describe this milestone?"
I'd say : "Over the year, China's wind and solar farms generated power almost equal to the annual power consumption of China's residential sector". That's all.
I still don't love it, because it invites flawed inferences, but it avoids the misleading word "enough".
I still don't love it, because it invites flawed inferences, but it avoids the misleading word "enough".
Even better, don't compare it to consumption at all.
It's more relevant that the wind + solar generation likely displaced something else in the grid mix, like coal.
If you wanna highlight something, try to quantify how much thermal generation was averted, or coal NOT consumed.
It's more relevant that the wind + solar generation likely displaced something else in the grid mix, like coal.
If you wanna highlight something, try to quantify how much thermal generation was averted, or coal NOT consumed.
The original article ofc had good intentions, but I don't think this kind of trite comparison to a consumption volume is helpful, since it encourages misunderstanding about how power dispatch works.
Better to celebrate renewables for what they can do, not what they can't.
Better to celebrate renewables for what they can do, not what they can't.
Loading suggestions...